It is common for business organizations providing services to customers to have a large number of service persons who undertake on-site visits for deliveries, repairs, installations, maintenance, and related service tasks. A wide range of businesses provide such on-site services, including computer manufacturers/retailers, appliance manufacturers/retailers/repairers, car detailers, cable companies, telephone companies, carpet installers and cleaners, and so forth. The list continues to grow as providing quality service increasingly becomes the touchstone for competing effectively in the marketplace for many businesses.
Typically, each individual providing on-site visits (“service person”) is provided a list of sites to visit and, perhaps, a description of what service is to be provided (e.g., install a second cable box). The service person may also be provided with a tentative appointment time or window (e.g., 2:30 p.m. or anytime between 1:00-5:00 p.m.). The service person then travels by car or van to each site to provide the needed service.
Typically, the service person will have a cellular phone and/or pager device so that he/she can periodically check in with, or receive calls from, the home office. For example, after each scheduled site is visited, the service person may call in to confirm that the site visit is complete and to report that the service person is proceeding to the next scheduled site. The service person may also call in the amount of time spent at the site so that a bill can be prepared. Alternatively, the service person may fill out an invoice form on-site so that it can be handed to the customer. The service person will return to the home office with copies of those invoices at the end of the day.
Unfortunately, there are a number of significant drawbacks to the conventional approach for providing on-site services. For example, the home office has no immediate avenue for confirming that a scheduled site visit actually took place. Instead, the home office must largely depend on the professionalism and honesty of the service person who confirms, explicitly or implicitly, that each site visit actually was made.
Sometimes missed appointments may be discovered through customer complaints, but this is not completely effective (and service organizations' goal is to avoid customer complaints, of course). Especially in the case where visits are not accompanied by a charge, it is not uncommon for a customer to ignore a no-show or simply forget to lodge a complaint. For example, it is not uncommon for cable service persons to miss appointments without repercussions. In fact, a customer may not even be present at the site (e.g., the customer may be absent because he/she is at work). A more troubling scenario would be a electrical meter reader who skips visits and makes up a nominal reading for the resident. The missed visits and accompanying fraud might not be detected for a long period of time.
Even if a customer eventually complains about a service person missing appointments, a significant period of time may pass before the problem is identified. During that period, there may be a significant loss of customer goodwill as a result. This is a significant drawback.
In sum, there are significant drawbacks to existing approaches for confirming site visits by service personnel.
Moreover, conventional approaches to ascertaining the details of a visit have significant drawbacks. For example, the time spent at a site may be important for purposes of billing and for purposes of determining service efficiency. According to the conventional approach, determining the time spent depends largely on the good (and accurate) word of the service person. As before, customer complaints provide one avenue for identifying fraud or inaccuracy; however, as discussed above, this can be an inefficient mechanism for identifying problems. This is especially the case when the customer is not present or when the visit is not a pay visit. Accordingly, present approaches to identifying the details of a site visit have significant drawbacks.
Finally, present approaches to confirming site visits and gathering site visit details (such as time spent) do not facilitate the gathering of global statistics. Present approaches provide for confirmation and detail data to be gathered in a largely manual, non-automated, and somewhat haphazard manner. Accordingly, aggregating and processing this data to determine overall service levels and efficiencies is not a straightforward process. For large service providers in extremely competitive markets, or for service providers with extremely narrow profit margins, this is a significant disadvantage.